I agree with this. I would at least try it. Yes, Manek will have high rebound games. But all too often he is a one trick pony. And if the 3s aren't falling against a physical team, all we get is the sour attitude. I'd start Vic, or at least give him 25 mins. See what he can do with different lineup combinations. He's big, strong, quick, very athletic. He's better than Manek at everything except when Manek gets hot from 3, but Vic does have a shot. I'm ready for OU to have more physicality. We seem pillsbury soft, and it's been that way for the last 3 and change years.
Gameday OU vs Stanford 830ish ESPN2
- Thread starter BoulderSooner
- Start date
I agree with this. I would at least try it. Yes, Manek will have high rebound games. But all too often he is a one trick pony. And if the 3s aren't falling against a physical team, all we get is the sour attitude. I'd start Vic, or at least give him 25 mins. See what he can do with different lineup combinations. He's big, strong, quick, very athletic. He's better than Manek at everything except when Manek gets hot from 3, but Vic does have a shot. I'm ready for OU to have more physicality. We seem pillsbury soft, and it's been that way for the last 3 and change years.
thebigabd
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 13,496
- Reaction score
- 77
Lon has been unable to recruit a "tough" big guy... We are small and soft, and it has been a noted problem. They are skilled, but it is the card we were dealt.
I agree with the toughness or lack of, Manek pouts too much for me, once he starts that I say put him on the bench. While I don't think Stanford is all that great the difference between them and OU was alarming. At least in that game
Who was Stanford's "tough" big guy?
I commented in the preseason regarding Manek's demeanor and was hoping he had matured. Of course a couple posters mocked that opinion.
coolm
New member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 8,694
- Reaction score
- 0
small? we are NOT small.
thebigabd
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 13,496
- Reaction score
- 77
OU doesn't have a post player in the rotation that weighs more than 225 pounds... Doolittle is 6'6''... He is a classic tweener, which can be fine, but he is technically a tweener.
OU doesn't have a height problem, but they don't have any "bangers" in the paint. You can be 6'7'' 235 and a be a banger, but OU doesn't have a player like that.
Doolittle is 6-7/232, I guess he needs to eat a big lunch to get to 235
https://soonersports.com/sports/mens-basketball/roster/kristian-doolittle/924
We do have a height problem. Doolittle is too short for his position. And Manek plays a lot shorter than his advertised height.
Kur and Vic would be a better combination. They're better suited physically for their positions.
Stanford didn't have a "banger". They just have a legit 6'9" guy who's athletic and plays hard.
BoulderSooner
Owner/Operator
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 14,390
- Reaction score
- 4,551
demeanor does not in any way relate to maturity
I disagree.
coolm
New member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 8,694
- Reaction score
- 0
bangers. bah. when we do have people like that the complaint is that we have a bunch of stiffs. the problem is few people trying to actually rebound. you don't have to crash the boards to rebound. you can actually block out and move to the ball. I can't even count the number of times I watched guys watch the ball go elsewhere. We're not moving. We're not moving off the ball for crap and we're not blocking out then moving to the ball defensively. You don't have to have bangers to do that. you need motivated people.
thebigabd
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 13,496
- Reaction score
- 77
Except that is rigged, which is fine, they are mostly all rigged... and was listed at 6'6'' 200 coming out of high school. I am sure he will go to the combine after this season and we will know for sure, but I doubt he is 6'7'' or 232.
The next time Manek puts in the effort to block somebody out will be the first.
steverocks35
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
- Messages
- 8,344
- Reaction score
- 1,342
And why aren’t they motivated? Coaching, coaching, coaching
False.
Dcox
New member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 360
- Reaction score
- 0
+1
Since I didn't see the Stanford game, I don't have an informed opinion. But, I did see enough in the games that I have seen to make some suggestions:
1) this is a very young and inexperienced team. Let them develop a little before making judgements.
2) I have seen some remarkable talent, but it makes the mistakes that you would see of freshmen. A good team will expose that. Apparently, Stanford did.
3) hopefully, some leadership emerges that stops bad runs and has some fight.
Keep the faith. These kids may be good.
1) this is a very young and inexperienced team. Let them develop a little before making judgements.
2) I have seen some remarkable talent, but it makes the mistakes that you would see of freshmen. A good team will expose that. Apparently, Stanford did.
3) hopefully, some leadership emerges that stops bad runs and has some fight.
Keep the faith. These kids may be good.
Similar threads
